Number of Linux Distributions Surpasses Number of Users !!!!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:23:54 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:50:46 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and
>>>>> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think
>>>>> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with
>>>>> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,
>>>>> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a
>>>>> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it
>>>>> comes to infrastructure).
>>>> No, you've got it wrong.
>>>> What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections, influence has
>>>> HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.
>>>> Not that he is doing it for the money.
>>> And, probably, Linus' father used all his wealth and influence to give
>>> his son's toy OS a good start?
>>
>> No.
>> His father's wealth gave him a good education and the opportunity to
>> succeed.
>> Which he did.
>
> Have you ever looked up what Linus' father's profession and status was?
> Whether he was "wealthy" at all? Quite a lot of countries here in Europe
> offer *everyone* the opportunity for a good education by giving the
> not-so-well-off grants. So even the child of a garbage collector could
> go to university.
>
> Wikipedia claims that his father had been a communist who, usually, are
> all but wealthy, if they do not belong to the ruling class, which is
> unlikely in Finland.
>
>>> Personally, I didn't even know the "astronaut" Mark Shuttleworth was
>>> behind the Distribution that I installed on my notebook.
>>
>> Most of you Ubuntu fanbois seem rather ignorant.
>
> Ah, resorting to insults, are you?
>
> You may interpret this as ignorance, I interpret it as choosing
> Ubuntu/Linux for its value rather than who stands behind it.
>
> Most Linux users use Linux and OSS because of its value and sometimes
> against pressure from outside to use another OS and toolset.

So Linux users are cheap.
What else is new.

Remember, you get what you *don't* pay for.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:57:12 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:23:54 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:50:46 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of
>>>>>> "money and connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle
>>>>>> though. Frankly, I think that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful.
>>>>>> Their forums are filled with misinformation and inaccuracies. The
>>>>>> moderators are pretty much clueless, incompetent fanbois who don't
>>>>>> even follow their own "guidelines". There's a real disconnect
>>>>>> between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it comes
>>>>>> to infrastructure).
>>>>> No, you've got it wrong.
>>>>> What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections,
>>>>> influence has HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.
>>>>> Not that he is doing it for the money.
>>>> And, probably, Linus' father used all his wealth and influence to
>>>> give his son's toy OS a good start?
>>>
>>> No.
>>> His father's wealth gave him a good education and the opportunity to
>>> succeed.
>>> Which he did.
>>
>> Have you ever looked up what Linus' father's profession and status was?
>> Whether he was "wealthy" at all? Quite a lot of countries here in
>> Europe offer *everyone* the opportunity for a good education by giving
>> the not-so-well-off grants. So even the child of a garbage collector
>> could go to university.
>>
>> Wikipedia claims that his father had been a communist who, usually, are
>> all but wealthy, if they do not belong to the ruling class, which is
>> unlikely in Finland.
>>
>>>> Personally, I didn't even know the "astronaut" Mark Shuttleworth was
>>>> behind the Distribution that I installed on my notebook.
>>>
>>> Most of you Ubuntu fanbois seem rather ignorant.
>>
>> Ah, resorting to insults, are you?
>>
>> You may interpret this as ignorance, I interpret it as choosing
>> Ubuntu/Linux for its value rather than who stands behind it.
>>
>> Most Linux users use Linux and OSS because of its value and sometimes
>> against pressure from outside to use another OS and toolset.
>
> So Linux users are cheap.
> What else is new.
>
> Remember, you get what you *don't* pay for.

So... you are cheap.

--
Rick
 
On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian
>>> stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such
>>> problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of
>>> Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware
>>> in the newer versions.
>
>>Moshe Goldfarb
>>That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it is
>>based on.
>>In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during
>>install yet was with PCLinuxOS.
>
> But that's largely an irrelevant differentiation because all linux distros
> update to the latest kernel. The fact that they have different release
> schedules just means that, at any particular point in time, one distro may
> support a particular piece of hardware or software feature that another
> doesn't. But at another (and typically soon) point of time, the other distro
> will get the latest updates, and then the shoe may be on the other foot. For
> example, maybe if you bought a new piece of hardware today, you may find that
> Mandriva supports it better because they've more recently had an update than
> PCLinuxOS has.
>
> As long as a distro is actively maintained (and Ubuntu is no moreso than many
> other distros out there), promoting a distro based upon release schedules is
> largely hype and PR. It's not a very pragmatic way to gauge a distro's
> usefulness because all distros get their software primarily from the same
> sources (for example, they all get their kernel from the same place, and their
> GUIs from the same places, etc). So they'll all get the same updates, even if
> that doesn't happen at the same moment across all distros.

An active release schedule means that new hardware will be
supported. It is important.

i
 
Ignoramus6985 wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian
>>>> stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such
>>>> problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of
>>>> Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware
>>>> in the newer versions.
>>> Moshe Goldfarb
>>> That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it is
>>> based on.
>>> In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during
>>> install yet was with PCLinuxOS.
>> But that's largely an irrelevant differentiation because all linux distros
>> update to the latest kernel. The fact that they have different release
>> schedules just means that, at any particular point in time, one distro may
>> support a particular piece of hardware or software feature that another
>> doesn't. But at another (and typically soon) point of time, the other distro
>> will get the latest updates, and then the shoe may be on the other foot. For
>> example, maybe if you bought a new piece of hardware today, you may find that
>> Mandriva supports it better because they've more recently had an update than
>> PCLinuxOS has.
>>
>> As long as a distro is actively maintained (and Ubuntu is no moreso than many
>> other distros out there), promoting a distro based upon release schedules is
>> largely hype and PR. It's not a very pragmatic way to gauge a distro's
>> usefulness because all distros get their software primarily from the same
>> sources (for example, they all get their kernel from the same place, and their
>> GUIs from the same places, etc). So they'll all get the same updates, even if
>> that doesn't happen at the same moment across all distros.
>
> An active release schedule means that new hardware will be
> supported. It is important.
>
> i


That is one benefit that I see with Linux. The Linux comunnity is trying
to keep up with the hardware industry. Means more improvement(hopefully)
in hardware, choices, etc....
Where as the powers that be want the hardware industry to conform to
them. With this scenario you don't have to have releases as often or
care if hardware works or not. Then you can blame the hardware industry
.......
caver1
 
On 2008-04-09, caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> Ignoramus6985 wrote:
>> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>>> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian
>>>>> stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such
>>>>> problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of
>>>>> Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware
>>>>> in the newer versions.
>>>> Moshe Goldfarb
>>>> That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it is
>>>> based on.
>>>> In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during
>>>> install yet was with PCLinuxOS.
>>> But that's largely an irrelevant differentiation because all linux distros
>>> update to the latest kernel. The fact that they have different release
>>> schedules just means that, at any particular point in time, one distro may
>>> support a particular piece of hardware or software feature that another
>>> doesn't. But at another (and typically soon) point of time, the other distro
>>> will get the latest updates, and then the shoe may be on the other foot. For
>>> example, maybe if you bought a new piece of hardware today, you may find that
>>> Mandriva supports it better because they've more recently had an update than
>>> PCLinuxOS has.
>>>
>>> As long as a distro is actively maintained (and Ubuntu is no moreso than many
>>> other distros out there), promoting a distro based upon release schedules is
>>> largely hype and PR. It's not a very pragmatic way to gauge a distro's
>>> usefulness because all distros get their software primarily from the same
>>> sources (for example, they all get their kernel from the same place, and their
>>> GUIs from the same places, etc). So they'll all get the same updates, even if
>>> that doesn't happen at the same moment across all distros.
>>
>> An active release schedule means that new hardware will be
>> supported. It is important.
>>
>> i
>
>
> That is one benefit that I see with Linux. The Linux comunnity is trying
> to keep up with the hardware industry. Means more improvement(hopefully)
> in hardware, choices, etc....
> Where as the powers that be want the hardware industry to conform to
> them. With this scenario you don't have to have releases as often or
> care if hardware works or not. Then you can blame the hardware industry
> ......
> caver1

The other nice thing about Linux is thatit supports old hardware where
the manufacturers may even be out of business, etc. Withess the latest
scandal with Creative labs, that refused to support old sound cards
for Vista and even threatened an independent Windows developer who
improved their drivers. Very obnoxious behavior.

i
 
netcat wrote:

>Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press. There was a
>three-year period there when SuSE filled every magazine (many of which
>included a SuSE CD) and was predicted by many a Linux blogger to become
>"THE Windows killer". However, Novell's plans don't include going
>toe-to-toe against Microsoft SuSE only went so far and when it did what
>Novell wanted, they slowed development and essentially switched to
>maintenance mode. In achieving user-friendliness SuSE had also tied the
>hands of more technical users, costing it the support of the geek crowd.
>
>Fedora was the Linux-media's next darling. It was backed by a successful
>Linux company, based on their successful commercial distribution,
>appealed to the geek crowd, and though it wasn't entirely
>consumer-friendly it showed terrific promise in that area. However, Red
>Hat wasn't at all interested in the consumer market and wouldn't devote
>the resources needed to whip Fedora into shape as a consumer OS. So,
>consumers went elsewhere. That elsewhere was Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, MEPIS,
>and other consumer-responsive distributions.

I see it the same way.
 
Talking about hardware support and kernel level in the same breath is
generally the sign of a poor device driver model.

Kernels should be device independent. If a distro includes drivers for
old devices, that's fine and dandy. Support of new devices shouldn't be
held up waiting for a new release of a particular distro.

Ignoramus22864 wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>> Ignoramus6985 wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian
>>>>>> stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such
>>>>>> problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of
>>>>>> Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware
>>>>>> in the newer versions.
>>>>> Moshe Goldfarb
>>>>> That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it is
>>>>> based on.
>>>>> In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during
>>>>> install yet was with PCLinuxOS.
>>>> But that's largely an irrelevant differentiation because all linux distros
>>>> update to the latest kernel. The fact that they have different release
>>>> schedules just means that, at any particular point in time, one distro may
>>>> support a particular piece of hardware or software feature that another
>>>> doesn't. But at another (and typically soon) point of time, the other distro
>>>> will get the latest updates, and then the shoe may be on the other foot. For
>>>> example, maybe if you bought a new piece of hardware today, you may find that
>>>> Mandriva supports it better because they've more recently had an update than
>>>> PCLinuxOS has.
>>>>
>>>> As long as a distro is actively maintained (and Ubuntu is no moreso than many
>>>> other distros out there), promoting a distro based upon release schedules is
>>>> largely hype and PR. It's not a very pragmatic way to gauge a distro's
>>>> usefulness because all distros get their software primarily from the same
>>>> sources (for example, they all get their kernel from the same place, and their
>>>> GUIs from the same places, etc). So they'll all get the same updates, even if
>>>> that doesn't happen at the same moment across all distros.
>>> An active release schedule means that new hardware will be
>>> supported. It is important.
>>>
>>> i
>>
>> That is one benefit that I see with Linux. The Linux comunnity is trying
>> to keep up with the hardware industry. Means more improvement(hopefully)
>> in hardware, choices, etc....
>> Where as the powers that be want the hardware industry to conform to
>> them. With this scenario you don't have to have releases as often or
>> care if hardware works or not. Then you can blame the hardware industry
>> ......
>> caver1
>
> The other nice thing about Linux is thatit supports old hardware where
> the manufacturers may even be out of business, etc. Withess the latest
> scandal with Creative labs, that refused to support old sound cards
> for Vista and even threatened an independent Windows developer who
> improved their drivers. Very obnoxious behavior.
>
> i
 
netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:24:36 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
>> Well, the amount of press that Linux got around that period was good. It
>> didn't have to be Ubuntu though. Most other distros were the same thing,
>> and just as good. It's not like Ubuntu had any software that the other
>> distros didn't have. Things probably would have played out exactly the
>> same if it had been Fedora or Suse mentioned in virtually every linux
>> article at that time, rather than Ubuntu, for example.
>
> Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press. There was a
> three-year period there when SuSE filled every magazine (many of which
> included a SuSE CD) and was predicted by many a Linux blogger to become
> "THE Windows killer". However, Novell's plans don't include going

Except no one could get it to install.

Bang goes that idea.
 
Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> writes:

>>Hadron
>>Ubuntu made Linux (or even Debian) more acceptable to the great
>>unwashed. Ubuntu would install on a wider range of HW than Debian in no
>>time at all - this has since benefited Debian too.
>
> I disagree. Yes, Ubuntu would install on more hardware than Debian stable, but
> not Debian testing. That's because Ubuntu wasn't based upon stable.
>
> For example, when I went to install the last version of stable on my system, it
> wouldn't because of SATA support. But testing had no problem, and was
> absolutely no less capable than Ubuntu.

I had exact same HW issues - but what was in "testing" for me worked but
other things in the testing installer didn't. Can't remember the details
as it was a mad few days - some of it down to me doing the headless
chicken I daresay (all pissed off that I was Linuxless on my new power
machine!) Ubuntu installed straight off. It was only a matter of a few
days/couple of weeks before the Debian testing installer then worked
mind you.

>
> It's unfair to suggest that Ubuntu (ie, Debian testing) was better than Debian
> stable because you're not comparing Ubuntu to the version of Debian that it
> came from, and was available at the time.
>
>>Ubuntu made things more Human.
>
> I think that this is a bit of hype. I don't even know what it means. I presume
> it means "easier to install", or something like that. And my experience is that
> it is not so.

Thousands would disagree Jeff. I know from my own experiences that
trying Debian 18 months ago was trying to say the least.

>
>>The problem was that People (Debian Fan
>>Geeks) had worked hard to get Debian working and where it is. And they
>>were damned if they were going to RTFM for Aunty Roy and his ilk - e.g
>>clueless idiots who just wanted to save money rather than buy into the
>>"learn by doing" ethos of many Linux distros.
>
> In the matter of support, I find Debian's online docs to be much more
> professional, accurate, and applicable to the latest version than Ubuntu's
> equivalents. The Ubuntu forums are inundated with mostly irrelevant fanboi
> noise, and what little info is there is often inaccurate or
> misleading. For

Agree - see other post.

> example, if you search for how to have the OS boot into console mode and
> automatically start up an app, you may find a reference to editing an inittab
> file. So a gutsy gibbon enduser fires up his text editor, ready to apply the
> needed changes to his inittab file. But there is no such file. Why? Because the
> very poorly documented Upstart has replaced the normal linux bootup code in
> later Ubuntu versions, and makes that file irrelevant. Yet, that's the answer
> you get on Ubuntu's forums. There are other examples I can list as well, which
> you'll find if you're willing to wade through the interminable amounts of
> fanboi noise such as how everything associated with MS is horrible, and how
> Ubuntu is perfect.
>
>>You come across as competent but a tad elitist not necessarily a bad thing.
>
> If it is "elitist" to say "Spare me the hype and deliver the goods, and if the
> goods don't match the hype, I'm calling you on it", then so be it. I don't
> think that's the least bit elitist. In fact, I think it's the opposite. It's
> the essense of pragmatism. But it's your prerogative to see it otherwise.
>
>>I disagree. The community in Debian are far less willing to hold
>>hands. Some people need hand holding.
>
> I'm perfectly fine with someone directing me to docs as long as those
> accurately answer my question. I've found that the Ubuntu community offers no
> more accurate answers, and in fact, you usually have to wade through an
> annoying amount of fanboi rhetoric to even get to the wrong answer.

True - but you are more likely to find someone to hold your hand. The
fact that more often than not the guy holding your hand is leading you
off into the woods is another issue .....


--
<StevenK> I can usually supress the feelings that tell me to crash
tackle a girl into the bushes
 
Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:50:46 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and
>>>> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think
>>>> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with
>>>> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,
>>>> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a
>>>> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it
>>>> comes to infrastructure).
>>>
>>> No, you've got it wrong.
>>> What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections, influence has
>>> HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.
>>> Not that he is doing it for the money.
>>
>> And, probably, Linus' father used all his wealth and influence to give
>> his son's toy OS a good start?
>
> No.
> His father's wealth gave him a good education and the opportunity to
> succeed.
> Which he did.
>
>
>> Personally, I didn't even know the "astronaut" Mark Shuttleworth was
>> behind the Distribution that I installed on my notebook.
>
> Most of you Ubuntu fanbois seem rather ignorant.

The best advocacy thread ever in COLA and guess why? It's nearly only
the "win trolls" posting and arguing facts rather than fiction. Congrats
to Jeff for putting his head above the parapet here. It wont be long, of
course, until Mark Kent comes along and insults him.

--
"Ignore the forging nym-shifting troll who pretends to be chrisv! I'm the *REAL* chrisv!"
chrisv, COLA.
 
Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> writes:

>
> You may interpret this as ignorance, I interpret it as choosing
> Ubuntu/Linux for its value rather than who stands behind it.
>
> Most Linux users use Linux and OSS because of its value and sometimes
> against pressure from outside to use another OS and toolset.

What value did you attribute to it over others? I used to recommend it
because it was there and active and easy to install. I'm not so
enamoured with it now. Its too active and too noisy and the forums are a
mess because of the fanboi element.

(Serious question btw).

--
"Ignore the forging nym-shifting troll who pretends to be chrisv! I'm the *REAL* chrisv!"
chrisv, COLA.
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:53:45 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:50:46 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and
>>>>> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think
>>>>> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with
>>>>> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,
>>>>> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a
>>>>> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it
>>>>> comes to infrastructure).
>>>>
>>>> No, you've got it wrong.
>>>> What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections, influence has
>>>> HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.
>>>> Not that he is doing it for the money.
>>>
>>> And, probably, Linus' father used all his wealth and influence to give
>>> his son's toy OS a good start?
>>
>> No.
>> His father's wealth gave him a good education and the opportunity to
>> succeed.
>> Which he did.
>>
>>
>>> Personally, I didn't even know the "astronaut" Mark Shuttleworth was
>>> behind the Distribution that I installed on my notebook.
>>
>> Most of you Ubuntu fanbois seem rather ignorant.
>
> The best advocacy thread ever in COLA and guess why? It's nearly only
> the "win trolls" posting and arguing facts rather than fiction. Congrats
> to Jeff for putting his head above the parapet here. It wont be long, of
> course, until Mark Kent comes along and insults him.

Yea, Jeff makes some very good points.
Mark Kent is a complete idiot who doesn't practice what he preaches.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
>>jg
>> Well, the amount of press that Linux got around that period was good. It
>> didn't have to be Ubuntu though. Most other distros were the same thing,
>> and just as good. It's not like Ubuntu had any software that the other
>> distros didn't have. Things probably would have played out exactly the
>> same if it had been Fedora or Suse mentioned in virtually every linux
>> article at that time, rather than Ubuntu, for example.

>netcat
>Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press.

Yes, but _before_ Linux was ready to take on the desktop. In fact, even such
things as the rate of broadband use (not widespread enough before Ubuntu came
on the scene) made a difference since Linux software was typically gotten via
the net. Ubuntu just happened to be the new kid on the block right at the most
opportune moment (ie, broadband use becoming widespread, the Linux kernel
finally getting wide enough driver support to be viable for most desktops,
gnome and kde finally being viable enough for most users, etc), and it was all
the hype by Ubuntu fanbois that got Ubuntu (an undeserved amount of) attention
(which is even less deserved today). It wasn't better than the other distros.
They all had the benefits of the same base software, and installer
improvements. Ubuntu was simply hyped to sound better than the other distros,
even though it wasn't, and certainly isn't today.
 
>Moshe Goldfarb
>>>> Personally, I didn't even know the "astronaut" Mark Shuttleworth was
>>>> behind the Distribution that I installed on my notebook.
>>>
>>> Most of you Ubuntu fanbois seem rather ignorant.
>>
>> Ah, resorting to insults, are you?
>>
>> You may interpret this as ignorance, I interpret it as choosing
>> Ubuntu/Linux for its value rather than who stands behind it.
>>
>> Most Linux users use Linux and OSS because of its value and sometimes
>> against pressure from outside to use another OS and toolset.
>
>So Linux users are cheap.
>What else is new.

Is this really necessary?
 
Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> writes:

>>>jg
>>> Well, the amount of press that Linux got around that period was good. It
>>> didn't have to be Ubuntu though. Most other distros were the same thing,
>>> and just as good. It's not like Ubuntu had any software that the other
>>> distros didn't have. Things probably would have played out exactly the
>>> same if it had been Fedora or Suse mentioned in virtually every linux
>>> article at that time, rather than Ubuntu, for example.
>
>>netcat
>>Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press.
>
> Yes, but _before_ Linux was ready to take on the desktop. In fact,
> even such

Agreed. And a point I have frequently made. Unfortunately there are a
hard core here who, and I'm not kidding, reckon Linux was ready for the
desktop 10 years ago. Seriously. In COLA they claim that.
 
>Ignoramus6985
>An active release schedule means that new hardware will be
>supported. It is important.

But it's the kernel developers who actively release linux. It's the gnome
developers who actively release gnome. It's the KDE developers who actively
release kde. Etc. It's not the Ubuntu developers. They simply package the
updates in their own distro.

All distros have access to these sources, and unless a distro is not being
actively maintained any more, they all get these updates and package them. The
fact that, at any given moment, one distro may not have as recent a version of
a particular software as another distro does is irrelevant, because tomorrow
the shoe may be on the other foot.

You have to look at what a distro has to offer which most other distros do not
and _cannot_. In that regard, Ubuntu really has nothing that the others don't.
That doesn't make it bad. It simply means that it's overhyped given the amount
of attention it gets, and the amount of times that people falsely state it's
the "easiest" distro. It isn't. Many others are equally, or in some ways,
"easier".
 
On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>Ignoramus6985
>>An active release schedule means that new hardware will be
>>supported. It is important.
>
> But it's the kernel developers who actively release linux. It's the gnome
> developers who actively release gnome. It's the KDE developers who actively
> release kde. Etc. It's not the Ubuntu developers. They simply package the
> updates in their own distro.
>
> All distros have access to these sources, and unless a distro is not
> being actively maintained any more, they all get these updates and
> package them. The fact that, at any given moment, one distro may not
> have as recent a version of a particular software as another distro
> does is irrelevant, because tomorrow the shoe may be on the other
> foot.

Except when debian becomes over 3 years old, it does matter.

> You have to look at what a distro has to offer which most other
> distros do not and _cannot_. In that regard, Ubuntu really has
> nothing that the others don't. That doesn't make it bad. It simply
> means that it's overhyped given the amount of attention it gets, and
> the amount of times that people falsely state it's the "easiest"
> distro. It isn't. Many others are equally, or in some ways,
> "easier".

I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
looking for, specifically

1) recent
2) well packaged
3) stable
4) Supports a lot of configurations

i
 
>>>Hadron
>>>Ubuntu made Linux (or even Debian) more acceptable to the great
>>>unwashed. Ubuntu would install on a wider range of HW than Debian in no
>>>time at all - this has since benefited Debian too.

>> I disagree. Yes, Ubuntu would install on more hardware than Debian stable, but
>> not Debian testing. That's because Ubuntu wasn't based upon stable.

>> For example, when I went to install the last version of stable on my system, it
>> wouldn't because of SATA support. But testing had no problem, and was
>> absolutely no less capable than Ubuntu.

>I had exact same HW issues - but what was in "testing" for me worked but
>other things in the testing installer didn't. Can't remember the details
>as it was a mad few days - some of it down to me doing the headless
>chicken I daresay (all pissed off that I was Linuxless on my new power
>machine!) Ubuntu installed straight off. It was only a matter of a few
>days/couple of weeks before the Debian testing installer then worked
>mind you.

I don't doubt that you had trouble on that particular day. But I'm looking at
the larger picture. What if it was a few weeks later that you were just trying
out Linux? Would Ubuntu have still been any "easier" to install than Debian?
You can't say, because varying release schedules (ie, the packaging and release
of updates of the kernel, GUI, apps, etc) happen at different times. At this
other point in time, the shoe may have been on the other foot.

Because Ubuntu is a "me too" distro which really has nothing most other distros
don't also have, and they all get their software from the same places, you
can't say that one is better than another. Just because, at one particular
point in time, one may have more recent software, doesn't mean that it holds
true at all points in time. In fact, it doesn't.

As one recent example, an exploit in the kernel was more quickly applied and
released for Debian than it was for Ubuntu. Some other day, that may not be the
case. So looking at the larger perspective, you can't say that Ubuntu is any
easier or better for anyone.

>> It's unfair to suggest that Ubuntu (ie, Debian testing) was better than Debian
>> stable because you're not comparing Ubuntu to the version of Debian that it
>> came from, and was available at the time.

>>>Ubuntu made things more Human.

>> I think that this is a bit of hype. I don't even know what it means. I presume
>> it means "easier to install", or something like that. And my experience is that
>> it is not so.

>Thousands would disagree Jeff. I know from my own experiences that
>trying Debian 18 months ago was trying to say the least.

But that was 18 months ago, on one particular day. Today is not the same day.

>>>The community in Debian are far less willing to hold
>>>hands. Some people need hand holding.

>> I'm perfectly fine with someone directing me to docs as long as those
>> accurately answer my question. I've found that the Ubuntu community offers no
>> more accurate answers, and in fact, you usually have to wade through an
>> annoying amount of fanboi rhetoric to even get to the wrong answer.

>True - but you are more likely to find someone to hold your hand.

In the Ubuntu forums? Oh yes, they're willing to jump right in and give you an
answer. Out of 10 answers you get, 5 of them will probably be totally unrelated
to your question but will nitpick at something in your question to justify
going off on some rant about how MS software is all dreadful, 3 answers will be
totally incorrect information, 1 "answer" will be someone saying "I have a
similiar problem, so can someone help me too?", and 1 answer will be simply a
link to some other site which may (but probably won't) give you any pertinent
information.

I just don't see the value of "Ubuntu hand-holding" unless all you want is to
warm your hand up. It doesn't seem to be of much more use than that.

>The fact that more often than not the guy holding your hand is leading you
>off into the woods is another issue .....

Not really... if you really _do_ want to solve your problems
 
Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> writes:

>>Ignoramus6985
>>An active release schedule means that new hardware will be
>>supported. It is important.
>
> But it's the kernel developers who actively release linux. It's the gnome
> developers who actively release gnome. It's the KDE developers who actively
> release kde. Etc. It's not the Ubuntu developers. They simply package the
> updates in their own distro.
>
> All distros have access to these sources, and unless a distro is not being
> actively maintained any more, they all get these updates and package them. The
> fact that, at any given moment, one distro may not have as recent a version of
> a particular software as another distro does is irrelevant, because tomorrow
> the shoe may be on the other foot.

This is slightly misleading. Leading distros invariably patch the core
kernel sources with their distro specifics. So "packaging" is a bit of a
misnomer.

>
> You have to look at what a distro has to offer which most other distros do not
> and _cannot_. In that regard, Ubuntu really has nothing that the others don't.
> That doesn't make it bad. It simply means that it's overhyped given the amount
> of attention it gets, and the amount of times that people falsely state it's
> the "easiest" distro. It isn't. Many others are equally, or in some ways,
> "easier".

--
I really think XP is going to be a flop. Between the glut of hardware out
there (and slowing down of purchasing), and the fact that W2K is
sufficient for so many casual users.... I just don't see it taking off.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
 
>Ignoramus22864
>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>looking for, specifically
>
>1) recent
>2) well packaged
>3) stable
>4) Supports a lot of configurations

Which is what you can get from many other distros.

What other distros have you tried, other than Debian 3 years ago, to do a fair
comparison of how Ubuntu stacks up to them _at the same point in time_, and
therefore whether Ubuntu really does deserve to be hyped as "the most user
friendly distro" as much as it is?

I believe you'll find that many other distros are every bit as "easy" and user
friendly as Ubuntu. You can't gauge that by one day, because all distros have
different release schedules, but you should be able to see that the amount of
hype surrounding Ubuntu is unwarranted, and therefore could only have happened
as the result of overzealous promotion (by what most people refer to as
"fanbois").

If you haven't tried another distro, you probably should. There are enough of
us that feel there are better distros than Ubuntu such that it's quite possible
you'd find yourself to be such a person too. So Ubuntu does what you need. If I
wanted to, I could probably get Ubuntu to do what I need too. But it's just as
possible that there could be something better out there for you, just like
there was for me.
 
Back
Top